Possibly it would be, and we will discuss them as we come to them, but I am mentioning these points now because they may clear up some matters in my mind before we give the bill second reading, and it may save time in committee. Then I read from page 43:
The duty of investigating and determining the adequacy of such consideration, where such
adequacy is involved in any litigation, should be placed squarely on the courts.
That has reference to section 9GB, to which the minister has referred so often, and that can be dealt with in committee. Then I read from the middle of page 44:
Moreover, creditorship securities are now occasionally issued with such designations that they convey the impression that they constitute a lien or charge on property when in fact they are merely unsecured obligations ranking with other similar unsecured debts of the company. The proposed board should prohibit this practice.
No board has been set up; under the amendments apparently the Secretary of State takes the place of the board that was suggested by the price spreads commission. Then at page 45 they say:
We therefore recommend legislation making appraisal companies liable in damages to any one suffering loss through the purchase of stock, to which purchase any such appraisal has contributed, if it can be shown that such appraisal was untrue in any material part, and that it was issued or published by the appraisal company (a) without honest belief in its accuracy, or (b) without such company having first taken all reasonable means_ to verify the accuracy of the facts or opinions contained in the appraisal.